“It’s not always you! Sometimes (believe it or not) the sponsor is wrong!”
I’m quite sure most of us who have been in this field long enough have had a situation where upon receiving an email we stopped and said “Huh?” (or maybe something a little more bold). But what if the email came from the sponsor? That’s enough to make you question yourself and think “do I not understand my job?” Let me tell you why this shouldn’t be your default train of thought… sometimes the sponsor is actually the one who is wrong!
My recent experience with a well respected sponsor left me feeling like I was losing my marbles. So here is the backstory: This was associated with an award transfer, and well we all know those come with their own set of burdens. However, this particular transfer has been a challenge for everyone from the PI, both Grants offices and even on the sponsor’s side as well. A few weeks after sending the sponsor exactly what they asked for I got an email saying “what we need is a 4 year detailed budget with these direct costs, not a 3 year”. I’m always one to acknowledge my mistakes but I was seriously confused and said to myself “HUH? Do I know how to do my job? How did I mess this up?”
Low and behold after searching my sent box and confirming what was submitted – I realized I was RIGHT. With the emails attached for reference I kindly replied and said I am a little confused because I did send these items. To be considerate, I made sure I acknowledged the duration of our back and forth, and asked her to confirm she too received the attachments in the email. Guess what – she confirmed that she had them! And she apologized profusely explaining these things are confusing on their end as well!
In closing – let this story serve as your reminder that this line of work is busy, email heavy and sponsors are just like us (and occasionally make mistakes as well) – it’s not always you!!
M. Elmendorf, CRA, The Research Foundation for the SUNY
A new PI moved to my institution with a big NIH R01 that had run for 23 years so it was time for a competitive renewal for another 5. He sent me the research strategy piece at NIH margins but 1.5 spacing so it was way, WAY over the 25 page limit. I warned him that NIH would never accept it as is and he insisted that “it fits on 25 pages single spaced but I am doing this as a courtesy to the reviewers so it is easier to read.”
Of course, it never got anywhere near the reviewers, it was returned without review for not following the page limitations. And, as a matter of fact, he never did get it renewed and it was his last NIH funding ever (he retired 10 years later).
S. Cao, Oregon State University
A PI submitted a reimbursement request for a dozen donuts on his NIH award. When I questioned the expense, he explained that they weren’t for his lab – they were for the guys at the slaughterhouse, in exchange for free cow eyeballs that he was using in his research project, so really he was saving the government a lot of money by getting them so cheaply. I applauded his initiative but declined the reimbursement because our accounting guidelines did not recognize donuts as a valid currency.
S. Held, Northwestern University
Many, many, many, many years ago (decades even) a young researcher contacted us because he needed guinea pig (might have been a mouse it was a long time ago) ovaries for a study. He didn’t want to go through the IACUC process and asked if it would be OK if he just bought a guinea pig from a pet shop and removed the ovaries at home. We talked him off that unethical ledge pretty quickly thankfully.
J. Moise, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
